I like to know how much webspace this board alone requires.
There are more than 1000 Threads here

_________________www.guitartrip.comVisit and enjoy, There is even some Paul Gilbert Material re-recorded, some handcrafted lessons and a huge Pornarchive!!!

Wed Jul 20, 2005 11:05 pm

KenHower

Site Admin

Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2002 6:44 pmPosts: 11819

Paulchen wrote:

I like to know how much webspace this board alone requires. There are more than 1000 Threads here

The database for the board is about 100 megs. I actually have TONS of storage....just no bandwidth to move it around.

_________________Ken Hower Wrote: My advice to everyone.....DO NOT purchase any of these photographs....Tim Findlay can jack off to his hearts content over his killer pictures...alone.

Regards,
Ken

Wed Jul 20, 2005 11:26 pm

KenHower

Site Admin

Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2002 6:44 pmPosts: 11819

Database size: 108.03 MB

_________________Ken Hower Wrote: My advice to everyone.....DO NOT purchase any of these photographs....Tim Findlay can jack off to his hearts content over his killer pictures...alone.

Regards,
Ken

Wed Jul 20, 2005 11:27 pm

Totalimmortal

Godzilla

Joined: Wed Oct 15, 2003 9:42 pmPosts: 908

It might be an idea to post the ed2k/bittorrent links for the videos so people can download them on p2p.

I noticed that you mention compressing the videos more. I suggested this to Big Tom about 6 months ago, after I compressed the intense rock 1 solo down to 9mb with barely any loss in quality. He dismissed it because "mpeg is the standard"

Thu Jul 21, 2005 12:54 am

KenHower

Site Admin

Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2002 6:44 pmPosts: 11819

I don't know what Tom said.

I compressed them awhile ago....it was about a 50% reduction in size and ultimately, bandwidth required...if I remember right.

_________________Ken Hower Wrote: My advice to everyone.....DO NOT purchase any of these photographs....Tim Findlay can jack off to his hearts content over his killer pictures...alone.

humm i guess this is a good thing
but i dunno if its just me
but i really hate compressed files

_________________GO THE MIGHTY ROOSTERS!!!

Thu Jul 21, 2005 4:25 am

KenHower

Site Admin

Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2002 6:44 pmPosts: 11819

Roosterman666 wrote:

humm i guess this is a good thingbut i dunno if its just mebut i really hate compressed files

Well...there's quality...and then there's REALITY.

_________________Ken Hower Wrote: My advice to everyone.....DO NOT purchase any of these photographs....Tim Findlay can jack off to his hearts content over his killer pictures...alone.

Regards,
Ken

Thu Jul 21, 2005 8:30 am

Totalimmortal

Godzilla

Joined: Wed Oct 15, 2003 9:42 pmPosts: 908

it's all about the quality:compression ratio...

Some of the original files were inefficient. For example, the IR-Solo had a stereo sound track, which only used the left side for the first half, and then half way through, it flipped to the right so it actually uses less bandwidth and improves the quality to convert the track to mono.

The main thing is the codec used. WMV is very good these days, although divx(and variations) is still better. When you look at bigger files, mpeg really lags behind.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum